Bakul Aromatics and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. the adjudicating authority vide order-in-original no. raigad/joint commr./106/02-03 dated 25.08.2003 denied the credit taken amounting to rs. 7,66,515/- (rupees seven lakhs sixty six thousand five hundred fifteen only) and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants on the ground that the credit was availed on the invoices without receiving the inputs in the factory premises.3. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 28 and 29 of the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 and availed modvat/cenvat facility as laid down under rule 57a and 57q of the erstwhile central excise rules, 1944.during the relevant period, the inputs were directly sent to their job worker, for which the department has taken objection for availing the modvat credit since the inputs were not directly received in the factory of the appellants.raymond synthetics ltd. v. collector of c.ex, allahabad 2001 (135) elt 170 (tri.- del.) (d) bhilwara melba de witte ltd. v. cce, jaipur-iii yashwant process works v. cce, ahmedabad therefore, the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals) is liable to be set aside in view of the settled position of the law.accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. in the result, appeal is allowed.

Judgment:
2. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. RAIGAD/JOINT COMMR./106/02-03 dated 25.08.2003 denied the credit taken amounting to Rs. 7,66,515/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen only) and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellants on the ground that the credit was availed on the invoices without receiving the inputs in the factory premises.

3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availed Modvat/Cenvat facility as laid down under Rule 57A and 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

During the relevant period, the inputs were directly sent to their job worker, for which the Department has taken objection for availing the Modvat credit since the inputs were not directly received in the factory of the appellants.Raymond Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex, Allahabad 2001 (135) ELT 170 (Tri.- Del.) (d) Bhilwara Melba De Witte Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-III Yashwant Process Works v. CCE, Ahmedabad Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be set aside in view of the settled position of the law.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed.